Privacy Act of 1974
30
MENTIONS
17
EPISODES
17
PODCASTS
Search complete. 30 mentions across 17 episodes found for "Privacy Act of 1974".
Sep 30, 2026
Rick HasenGUEST
You know, like we've heard this about, you know, sexual freedom and things like that.
Rick HasenGUEST
This is there's a federal statute called the Privacy Act that makes it illegal to share certain information about privacy.
Rick HasenGUEST
individuals, including their Social Security numbers, unless you jump through a certain amount of hoops.
Rick HasenGUEST
So the argument is that this is technically not allowed.
Liz DyeHOST
So the League of Women Voters sued DHS in district court in DC, and in June, Judge Sparkle Sukhanan issued a permanent injunction blocking the use of the SAVE database to disenfranchise voters.
Liz DyeHOST
She ruled that it violated the Social Security Act and also the Privacy Act to transfer Social Security numbers compiled for other purposes into this system, which was kind of duct-taped together out of this DHS benefits verification database.
Liz DyeHOST
And the Trump administration did comply with her order.
Liz DyeHOST
It disabled the bulk search function in SAVE, uh, and, and an appeal to the DC Circuit.
Andrew TorrezHOST
And both of these cut so strongly the other way that I, I'm almost surprised that even this court came out this way.
Liz DyeHOST
So on the merits, it's obvious that the DOJ-ified SAVE system violates the law.
Liz DyeHOST
The Federal Privacy Act prohibits a federal agency from disclosing anyone's private information, including Social Security number, without consent unless it's for, quote, "routine use." And the way that the government establishes a routine use is by publishing a system of records notice, or a SORN-
Andrew TorrezHOST
Mm-hmm
R.J. DeaconHOST
First, they all alleged that the modifications violated a confidentiality provision in the Social Security Act that prohibits the disclosure of Social Security numbers and other SSA records.
R.J. DeaconHOST
Second, they alleged that the modifications violated substantive and procedural protections in the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the non-consensual disclosure of certain information and requires that agencies complete a notice and comment process for program modifications.
R.J. DeaconHOST
Third, they alleged that the modifications were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.
R.J. DeaconHOST
The plaintiff organizations moved for summary judgment on all three claims.
R.J. DeaconHOST
The government cross-moved to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, that the modified SAVE program did not violate the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, or the APA.
R.J. DeaconHOST
that congress had authorized dhs in a usc section 13 73 to use social security numbers and related records notwithstanding any other provision of law the district court agreed with the plaintiff organizations across the board set aside and vacated the modified save program and its related notices and denied the government's application for a stay pending appeal A divided panel of the D.C.
R.J. DeaconHOST
Circuit also denied the government's application for a stay, with Judge Kastas dissenting.
R.J. DeaconHOST
That's Mies versus Keene from 1987.
William CooperHOST
He knows it's the, he knows it's the truth.
TomAUDIENCE
But anyway, I, uh, had an encounter with the Department of Motor Vehicles in North Carolina with a copy of the Privacy Act in my hand and them wanting my Social Security number to renew my driver's license.
William CooperHOST
Yeah.
TomAUDIENCE
Well, do you realize a federal statute has been passed that allows states to require that before they can issue a driver's license now?
William CooperHOST
The federal government has nothing to do with what states do, and the states can't pass one law saying that you can't demand anyone to produce it and then pass another one saying that you can.
TomAUDIENCE
Well, the Privacy Act states, and you know, you know what it states.
William CooperHOST
Yeah, I do.
TomAUDIENCE
It states that unless there's a federal statute in place or the law was in effect before January first, nineteen seventy-five-
Andrew BrancaHOST
The right hand of the federal government cannot share that information with the left hand of the federal government, another governmental agency.
Andrew BrancaHOST
Second, they allege that the modifications violated substantive and procedural protections in the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the non-consensual disclosure of certain information and requires that agencies complete a notice and comment process for program modifications.
Andrew BrancaHOST
Third, they allege that the modifications were arbitrary and capricious under the left's favorite federal statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, which bars... bars acts by federal agencies that are arbitrary and capricious.
Andrew BrancaHOST
So before I go on, a couple of things worth mentioning again here.
Andrew BrancaHOST
Pull the case back up here.
Andrew BrancaHOST
The plaintiff organizations moved for summary judgment on all three claims.
Andrew BrancaHOST
The government cross-moved to dismiss... or in the alternative for summary judgment itself, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, that the modified SAVE program did not violate the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, or the APA, and that Congress had authorized DHS to use Social Security numbers and related records, notwithstanding any other provision of law.
Andrew BrancaHOST
The district trial court agreed with the plaintiff organizations across the board, set aside and vacated.
speaker_1NARRATOR
First, they alleged that the modifications violated a confidentiality provision in the Social Security Act that prohibits the disclosure of SSNs and other SSA records.
speaker_1NARRATOR
Second, they alleged that the modifications violated substantive and procedural protections in the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the non-consensual disclosure of certain information and requires that agencies complete a notice and comment process for program modifications.
speaker_1NARRATOR
Third, they alleged that the modifications were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act .
speaker_1NARRATOR
The plaintiff organizations moved for summary judgment on all three claims.
Nick HartGUEST
And the data can help us do that better.
Robert SheaHOST
So, Nick, you casually referenced the 1974 Privacy Act a bit ago.
Robert SheaHOST
Very
Nick HartGUEST
casually.
Ben NeumeierGUEST
I mean, I think this could be a multi-hour conversation in itself.
Ben NeumeierGUEST
But just to give you the legal backdrop, government collection and storage and sharing of data is, broadly speaking, governed by the Privacy Act of 1974 and its later amendments.
Ben NeumeierGUEST
I think that actually going back to this in the record is very interesting because this piece of legislation and the work in the Senate that enabled it really sort of set some of the foundational norms of privacy to begin with.
Ben NeumeierGUEST
This was a time when the computing power was exploding.
Ben NeumeierGUEST
Nothing compared to what we have now.
Ben NeumeierGUEST
But this was a time when there was a lot of concern over the amounts of data held both by the government and private corporations and how it could be sort of stored and pooled together and used to surveil people.
Ben NeumeierGUEST
And the concerns that underlay the Privacy Act of 1974 include things like a loss of autonomy and a sense of silent control from large, powerful actors who, have control over so much information and the ability to make decisions that are adverse to citizens based on it.
Ben NeumeierGUEST
With that little history lesson out of the way, I think that there's a few critiques of the Privacy Act and shortcomings that have been highlighted by what we've seen in the last 18 months.
Monica PerezHOST
"The Trump administration," from the newspaper, "the Trump administration has mobilized federal agencies to sue states to try to force them to turn over their complete voter rolls and threaten chief election officials with prosecution if anyone but US citizens are registered to vote on their watch.
Monica PerezHOST
They also ordered the creation of a mass voter verification system that's tied up in court over alleged inaccuracies and privacy concerns." So that's a violation of the 1974 Privacy Act.
Monica PerezHOST
I won't get into that.
Monica PerezHOST
But the other thing is, it's like the age verification for TikTok.
Monica PerezHOST
They also ordered the creation of a mass voter verification system that's tied up in court over alleged inaccuracies and privacy concerns.
Monica PerezHOST
So that's a violation of the 1974 Privacy Act.
Monica PerezHOST
I won't get into that.
Monica PerezHOST
But the other thing is, it's like the age verification for TikTok.
7 more episodes mention Privacy Act of 1974.
Create an account to see the whole feed, search across every transcript, and follow the entities you care about.